• We are looking for you!
    Always wanted to join our Supporting Team? We are looking for enthusiastic moderators!
    Take a look at our recruitement page for more information and how you can apply:
    Apply

Submitted Rearrange Land Expansions in Reconstruction Mode

Agaselle

Active Member
With more peoples like you playing ,the game will become more finished.Ilike idears that give players the option to always choose.Lets not forget that Inno kind of wants peoples to help the game to be more finished. The winner of this game is everyone who wants to play it and have fun.So give the players what they want..............
 
Last edited:

Ironrooster

Well-Known Member
The difficulty of implementation depends on how the software was designed, the programming standards that are used, and how well those standards are maintained as changes are made. This could be trivial to very difficult.

One of the issues in dealing with users (and we are the users here) is the users' assumptions about what is trivial or what is difficult to change. Users (us in this case) just don't know.

It's better for us to simply ask for what we want and possibly provide a priority of importance. Then let Inno, who will bear the cost of implementation, determine the cost (in time and money) and whether or not it's worth it.
 

byteviper

New Member
I have been in situations where this could help with adding a new building or changing buildings out with new ones, so I can see where it could be useful.
 

Xenosaur

Well-Known Member
Been watching this discussion for a few days, and thought I'd mention a few things, too.

We can all (or most of us) venture back to the time when the RECONSTRUCTION tools didn't exist, and people all said the same thing: Figure it out, the game should be challenging. Well, we did jump through hoops to modify our cities, putting out lots of land squares as swap space and used VERY precious as many "STORE BUILDING" tools as we could assemble (They were much rarer back then...).

We got it done incrementally with the ruthless precision offered within the availability of that space. It was complex and kludgy - but we survived.

Land squares are the same type of player/game resource as a monolithic event building, or something from the build menu. Roads included.

They are earned multiple ways, and can benefit the owner in some configurations, and destroy the game in others. It is unknown as a new player what those will be, and it's also fair to say, that INNO has designed NEW building types that have specific orientations to work - that weren't around when the game started but are here now, and are typically unknown when intrinsically new players decide to invest their time to start a new city.

TerraCotta Vineyard must be oriented 1 way to work with it's additional products, which is conceptually orthogonal (but really only 90 degrees) skewed from the Winter train building and it's rail cars. Statue of Honor and the Road to Victory go LONG - one way only - as does the Elephant Citadel and Iridescent Gardens, in the opposite direction.

So before we get so resolute about a level of "challenging" we had then and we want people to have now, we need to consider that product concepts move forward, and tools should too.

I am not rabid that the idea of moveable land squares is a gating game item, but see it as a resource that should be included in the RECONSTRUCTION tool menu.

I would vote to "YES" to allow that to proceed forward.
 
Last edited:

Johnny B. Goode

Well-Known Member
We can all (or most of us) venture back to the time when the RECONSTRUCTION tools didn't exist, and people all said the same thing: Figure it out, the game should be challenging. Well, we did jump through hoops to modify our cities, putting out lots of land squares as swap space and used VERY precious as many "STORE BUILDING" tools as we could assemble (They were much rarer back then...).
I obviously can't speak for everyone, but I never put out a single expansion as "swap space". And can't remember ever using Store Building items when rearranging a city. In fact, I rarely use Store Building items at all except for an event quest or to take a no-longer-effective special building out of my city for selling to the AD.
Land squares are the same type of player/game resource as a monolithic event building, or something from the build menu. Roads included.
No, in fact they are not. They have been meant from the beginning to be unmovable once placed. Hence the idea that they are a fundamental challenge of the game.
They are earned multiple ways, and can benefit the owner in some configurations, and destroy the game in others.
This is true. However, it is also not a reason to make this change. There are lots of decisions in the game that can benefit you if you make the correct one and pretty much destroy your game if you make the wrong one. For example, aging up too fast. Is that the next change? The ability to reverse other decisions? "Move up to fast? No problem, just age back down."
It is unknown as a new player what those will be,
Also true, but common sense should kick in pretty quickly. Also, as mentioned by others, if you screw up as a noob you can just start a new city and do it right. And, to be fair, placing one expansion wrong early in the game is not a game-breaker. And if you do it once you've been playing a while, then that's a "you" problem and not a game problem that needs to be "fixed".
and it's also fair to say, that INNO has designed NEW building types that have specific orientations to work - that weren't around when the game started but are here now, and are typically unknown when intrinsically new players decide to invest their time to start a new city.

TerraCotta Vineyard must be oriented 1 way to work with it's additional products, which is conceptually orthogonal (but really only 90 degrees) skewed from the Winter train building and it's rail cars. Statue of Honor and the Road to Victory go one way only - as does the Elephant Citadel and Iridescent Gardens, in the opposite direction.
Sets have been around a long time, and players have been able to deal with them pretty well even with the "handicap" of immovable expansions. And there have always been oddly shaped buildings that players have had to work into their cities. Moving expansions is no different from rotating buildings, and that's something Inno has a long time policy of not changing.
So before we get so resolute about a level of "challenging" we had then and we want people to have now, we need to consider that product concepts move forward, and tools should too.

I am not rabid that the idea of moveable land squares is a gating game item, but see it as a resource that should be included in the RECONSTRUCTION tool menu.
There is no valid argument to be made from a game standpoint for changing the fundamental nature of this game mechanism (not a resource). Just because it makes sense to you as an individual player does not mean it would be good for the game. Once you make it so every decision reversible, you change this from a game to a sandbox. And make no mistake, once you start changing fundamentals of the game like this, there is nothing standing in the way of changing everything else.
 

Emberguard

Well-Known Member
This is true. However, it is also not a reason to make this change. There are lots of decisions in the game that can benefit you if you make the correct one and pretty much destroy your game if you make the wrong one. For example, aging up too fast. Is that the next change? The ability to reverse other decisions? "Move up to fast? No problem, just age back down."
I wouldn’t really say it’s possible to “destroy your game”, but rather only slow it down. Everything can be fixed one way or another, it just takes time to do so.

The town hall gives coins daily, so even if you had 0 resources, you could still rebuild. Not to mention there’s Aiding for coins too. That then allows you to build up supplies, which in turn gives access to goods (though you can get those other ways too)
 

Johnny B. Goode

Well-Known Member
I wouldn’t really say it’s possible to “destroy your game”, but rather only slow it down. Everything can be fixed one way or another, it just takes time to do so.

The town hall gives coins daily, so even if you had 0 resources, you could still rebuild. Not to mention there’s Aiding for coins too. That then allows you to build up supplies, which in turn gives access to goods (though you can get those other ways too)
I only used the term "destroy" because the person I was quoting had used it. I also qualified my use of it by preceding the word with "pretty much", because you are right in that many mistakes can be corrected, given time. There are some, however, that cannot be corrected. Such as deleting the Yggdrasil Tree. Can't get another one of those once you've made that mistake.
 

Emberguard

Well-Known Member
There are some, however, that cannot be corrected. Such as deleting the Yggdrasil Tree. Can't get another one of those once you've made that mistake.
Well..... Support did return my Pillar of Heroes when I deleted it years ago..... So I wouldn't say you can't fix the mistake of deleting a Yggdrasil
 

Johnny B. Goode

Well-Known Member
Well..... Support did return my Pillar of Heroes when I deleted it years ago..... So I wouldn't say you can't fix the mistake of deleting a Yggdrasil
Well, if you did it intentionally like I did in several cities...
(When I said mistake, I didn't mean "by accident", I meant an error in judgement.)
 

LoveNkind

Active Member
The vote does not mention the possibility that this could be limited.
Examples:
Only one expansion move per city re-do
One per month
Premium item
An award for contributing something to the game
 

PJS299

Well-Known Member
People are saying no to this, and I understand why, but this would be very useful. I am camping in colonial age right now, trying to get goods and supplies. I don't want to move to the next age, so I can't get expansions from the tech tree, I finished my continent map, and the next two ages, and medals are getting way to expensive. I would love to be able to rearrange my expansions.
 
The game is SUPPOSED to be challenging. You are SUPPOSED to use your brain to work out strategies that make things work better and help you move forward to yet more challenges. It is not designed to let you get everything handed to you on a easy serve platter. There are plenty other mind dumbing games out there that do that.
You’re right it’s supposed to be a challenge. But in some cases you can get around that by spending a little money (or in some cases a lot of money). Let’s whitewash over that so that we can deny a couple of people the ability to move a couple of expansions.
 

Johnny B. Goode

Well-Known Member
You’re right it’s supposed to be a challenge. But in some cases you can get around that by spending a little money (or in some cases a lot of money). Let’s whitewash over that so that we can deny a couple of people the ability to move a couple of expansions.
The key words here are "in some cases". Obviously moving expansions is not one of those cases. Sure, some challenges can be got around by spending money, but that's not part of this proposal, so nobody is whitewashing over it. Are you suggesting that the ability to move expansions should only be available to those who spend money for it, if implemented? Because that's what you're implying here.
 
The key words here are "in some cases". Obviously moving expansions is not one of those cases. Sure, some challenges can be got around by spending money, but that's not part of this proposal, so nobody is whitewashing over it. Are you suggesting that the ability to move expansions should only be available to those who spend money for it, if implemented? Because that's what you're implying here.
I wasn’t trying to imply any such thing. You want us all to believe the rearranging expentions is some sort of game altering abomination that is going to affect the game more than the fact that some players buy their way through the game instead of actually playing it. The ability to move a few expansions isn’t going to give me or anyone else the same advantage as someone that spends $1000s of dollars a year on the game. Nothing you say will convince me otherwise.
 

Johnny B. Goode

Well-Known Member
I wasn’t trying to imply any such thing.
Then mentioning other players spending money on the game is irrelevant to this topic.
You want us all to believe the rearranging expentions is some sort of game altering abomination that is going to affect the game more than the fact that some players buy their way through the game instead of actually playing it.
No, I don't. You want to bring players spending money into the discussion when it has nothing to do with the suggestion of the OP. I make no comparison between the two at all. They are apples and oranges.
The ability to move a few expansions isn’t going to give me or anyone else the same advantage as someone that spends $1000s of dollars a year on the game.
Again, that is irrelevant. It is a straw man argument because no one is saying what you're arguing against.
Nothing you say will convince me otherwise.
And I'm not trying to convince you otherwise because I'm only discussing the ability to move expansions, not players spending money.
 

Nakijima

New Member
I read through the responses and decided this was a good idea which should be supported in my opinion.

I really do not see where having the ability to move land squares, which you purchased by the way, is somehow detrimental to the experience. One would almost think that having the ability to move land squares around would be a normal part of the reconstruction tool.

Not having the ability to move land squares around is an annoyance and there's a difference between having to endure an annoyance as opposed to having been presented with a challenge. On the whole not having the ability to move land squares is more detrimental to game play: Causing slowed progression or frustration whereby a new player who has greatly errored may quit the game instead of forging on, and we need to bear in mind here that the game must appeal to a wide margin of age and intellects so I think adopting this would be a wise move. Also, whereas if you can move the property around, then doing that presents a player with increasing complexity of options and therefore presents a more challenging proposition to the player.

I support this suggestion as a game enhancing proposal.
 
Top